Pat Hayes wrote:
>> On 13 Feb 2006, at 22:12, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> --------
>>> Definition: E-entailment Regime
>>>
>>> An E-entailment regime is a relation between a subset of RDF graphs
>>> and a subset of basic graph patterns.
>>>
>>> A basic graph pattern in the range of an E-entailment is called
>>> well- formed for the E-entailment.
>>> --------
>>>
>>> Was this in version 1.623 when we took the vote?? If so, I
>>> apologize for not noticing it at the time, but this is broken.
>>> Entailment is a relationship between graphs, because *by
>>> definition* it refers to truth of the graph in an interpretation.
>>> Patterns don't have truthvalues in interpretations. So what it
>>> should say is that an E-entailment regime is a relation between RDF
>>> graphs, defined on a subset of RDF graphs. The graphs in the subset
>>> are called well-formed for the entailment regime. (I'd avoid the
>>> use of 'range' here, see below.)
>> You're right.
>>
>> """
>> Definition: E-entailment Regime
>> An E-entailment regime is a binary relation between subsets of RDF graphs.
>> A graph in the range of an E-entailment is called well-formed for
>> the E-entailment.
>> """
>>
>> (we need range here since the domain may not be the same as the
>> range -- e.g., OWL-DL query answering).
>
> Ah, I see. But there are expository reasons for not using that very
> word without explanation, see my earlier mail.
>
> Pat
I have made the change to (v1.640)
"""
Definition: E-entailment Regime
An E-entailment regime is a binary relation between subsets of RDF graphs.
A graph in the range of an E-entailment is called well-formed for
the E-entailment.
"""
which still uses the word 'range'. If there is an editorial proposal for a
wording that does not use 'range', I'll consider it (as per the telecon
decision) - the change is made now because it is at least better than the
wrongly worded we did have.
Andy
>
>
>> --e.
>>
>> Attachment converted: betelguese2:smime 27.p7s ( / ) (00237A7A)
>
>